USB C everything: USB IF releases new USB-C 2.1 spec

[WolframaticAlpha]

Summary

The USB Implementers forum has released the new USB-C 2.1 spec. This new type can now drive 240W of power, a massive increase from the 100W of power. This new feature is called "Extended Power Range". This spec is aimed at eliminating the large powerbricks for massive gaming laptops, which required more than a 100W of power.  The USB-IF worked with manufacturers like Dell, Apple, HP, Qualcomm, Intel, AMD, Google and Oculus. 

 

Quotes

Quote

Cables supporting 240 watts will have additional requirements to accommodate the new levels. And USB-IF will require the cables to bear specific icons "so that end users will be able to confirm visually that the cable supports up to...240W," USB-IF said in the specification document.

 

My thoughts

USB-C everything! I am still looking forward to the day, when I will be able to charge my phone, run my PC and charge my car through the same cable. This is a step in the right direction. 

 

Sources

USB-C upgrade delivers a whopping 240W for gaming laptops and other power-hungry devices - CNET

USB-C is about to go from 100W to 240W, enough to power beefier laptops - The Verge

[GorujoCY]

damn let's gooooo, usb-c got a huge bump.

tbh i dont even think phones will utilize this much power and yes it's obvious, it will be dangerous charging your phone at 240W, unless in 2077 what makes someone a criminal we just see phones with like 1.000.000mAh batteries or whatever

[jwwagner25]

somehow dell already managed to get 130 watts through usb C, wonder how they did it. 

[Freakwise]

5 minutes ago, jwwagner25 said:

somehow dell already managed to get 130 watts through usb C, wonder how they did it. 

well if it was "closed" to just dell i guess it was as easy as using thicker cable and using bigger pcb trace at both end,

 

[Drama Lama]

12 minutes ago, GorujoCY said:

tbh i dont even think phones will utilize this much power and yes it's obvious, it will be dangerous charging your phone at 240W

it's more meant for laptops than phones

[Arika]

can we please not call it that? its just going to be confusing.

 

USB 2.0

USB 3.1

USB 3.2

USB-C 2.1

 

they need to enforce a speed on USB-C so you dont have USB-C cables that are actually just USB 2.0 speeds

[cj09beira]

"This spec is aimed at eliminating the large powerbricks for massive gaming laptops,", how does the plug and one use to power the laptop have anything to do with how large the transformers are, i am calling BS on that

[Freakwise]

4 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

"This spec is aimed at eliminating the large powerbricks for massive gaming laptops,", how does the plug and one use to power the laptop have anything to do with how large the transformers are, i am calling BS on that

well not really theres a kick starter project on 200w usb c charger that not much bigger than usual charger was

 

 

 

https://chargeasap.com/products/200w-omega-usb-c-charger

[Stahlmann]

32 minutes ago, Arika S said:

can we please not call it that? its just going to be confusing.

 

USB 2.0

USB 3.1

USB 3.2

USB-C 2.1

 

they need to enforce a speed on USB-C so you dont have USB-C cables that are actually just USB 2.0 speeds

Do they look like they care about a confusing naming sheme?

 

USB 2.0 Type A

USB 3.0 Gen1x1 Type A

USB 3.0 Gen1x2 Type A

USB 3.1 Gen2x1 Type C

USB 3.1 Gen2x2 Type C

And the list goes on...

 

I don't even know if i listed any of them correctly because the naming is so stupid and no one can even remember most of it.

USB naming is completely messed up. They should just use The header type and the bandwidth instead of USB2, USB3, etc.

Who cares about the 2.0, 3.0, Gen, 1x2, etc. stuff?

 

For example:

USB-C 10Gbit

or

USB-A 5Gbit

 

It could be so easy. I don't get why they make it worse and worse. What good does standardizing do if there are 10 standards for the same port type?

[Freakwise]

3 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

I don't get why they make it worse and worse...

It could be so easy.

i guess thats why every major company have marketing teams, it just happens that on usb if the "marketing" team is as nerdy as the engineer is

[Spotty]

55 minutes ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

This new type can now drive 240W of power, a massive increase from the 100W of power. This new feature is called "Extended Power Range". This spec is aimed at eliminating the large powerbricks for massive gaming laptops, which required more than a 100W of power.

Where does is say that? The 'large power bricks' are the power supplies that convert the AC power from the wall to DC power so you can charge the batteries in your laptops. Changing the cable connector from a barrel jack to a USB C connector doesn't remove the need to convert AC to DC. You'll still have the power bricks.

[Dujith]

Also 240W over those tiny connectors at the end scares me a wee bit. You better use contact spray each time you insert it.

Wondering on how they will do that as i see just 4 pins for power? 

[paddy-stone]

1 hour ago, cj09beira said:

"This spec is aimed at eliminating the large powerbricks for massive gaming laptops,", how does the plug and one use to power the laptop have anything to do with how large the transformers are, i am calling BS on that

Because the transformer is built in to the USB type C charger? which is usually a lot smaller than traditional power bricks. Also, desktop chargers are starting to get more type C connections on them now that more and more devices are using it... I know you could just use type A to type C cables, but there's something satisfying about it having the same port on both ends

 

 

I'm looking forward to USB 4.0 which should see a fairly substantial bump to connection speeds, and IIRC should also fold thunderbolt into the spec, so it should be more of a universal cable type than having to get a specifically thunderbolt cable if you see what I mean?

[Dujith]

6 minutes ago, paddy-stone said:

Because the transformer is built in to the USB type C charger? which is usually a lot smaller than traditional power bricks

The 100W chargers that are out now are beefy  compared to modern power bricks with the same wattage they are not smaller.

There is no magic circuit that will allow you to transform 240/120V AC to DC without having to be able to handle that 100W itself.

[Freakwise]

1 minute ago, Dujith said:

The 100W chargers that are out now are beefy  compared to modern power bricks with the same wattage they are not smaller.

while thats true GaN based charger is on the rise so hopefully the smaller size for same power rating

 

 

 the "eliminating the large power brick for massive gaming laptop" part should be above their paygrade

i mean if the power brick is smaller manufactures could still used barrel jack if they prefer that

 

 

45 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Where does is say that? The 'large power bricks' are the power supplies that convert the AC power from the wall to DC power so you can charge the batteries in your laptops. Changing the cable connector from a barrel jack to a USB C connector doesn't remove the need to convert AC to DC. You'll still have the power bricks.

yup

[Spotty]

44 minutes ago, paddy-stone said:

Because the transformer is built in to the USB type C charger? which is usually a lot smaller than traditional power bricks.

The reason current USB C chargers (phone chargers) are small is because they deliver little power. 10-20W. My phone charger output is 9V @ 1.67A (15W). If you're expecting 240W power supplies they're not going to be tiny wall chargers. Condensing the size of the power supply (charger) has little to do with the connector type on the cable. If they are going to make smaller chargers they could still do that using a barrel jack or other type of power delivery connector.

 

44 minutes ago, paddy-stone said:

I'm looking forward to USB 4.0 which should see a fairly substantial bump to connection speeds, and IIRC should also fold thunderbolt into the spec, so it should be more of a universal cable type than having to get a specifically thunderbolt cable if you see what I mean?

The 240W max power is a sub-standard called "Extended Power Range" (EPR) and cables/devices that are EPR capable will be branded as such. Not all USB C Gen.Whatever cables will be EPR capable. It just adds another type of USB cable in to the mix.

 

 

Since there's additional complications with having the EPR cables and the higher voltage used causing arcing between the connectors during insertion/removal and requiring capacitors in the connectors (making them more expensive to produce) I expect most USB type C cables won't be EPR capable cables. Really only the cables that come with laptop chargers or maybe some other high power devices.

Edited May 26, 2021 by Spotty

[BabaGanuche]

2 hours ago, Arika S said:

can we please not call it that? its just going to be confusing.

 

USB 2.0

USB 3.1

USB 3.2

USB-C 2.1

 

they need to enforce a speed on USB-C so you dont have USB-C cables that are actually just USB 2.0 speeds

There is a speed standard on USB-C connectors it just happens to be USB-2.0

 

The reason you have different speeds on USB-C cables is because it is just a connector standard.Think USB-A the 'normal' connector that can supply USB 1.0, USB-1.1, USB-2.0, USB-3.0, USB-3.1

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB

 

[Spindel]

Now please change the connector from the male+female/female+male type to a strict male/female type. 

[CephDigital]

4 hours ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

 This new type can now drive 240W of power

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Do they look like they care about a confusing naming sheme?

 

USB 2.0 Type A

USB 3.0 Gen1x1 Type A

USB 3.0 Gen1x2 Type A

USB 3.1 Gen2x1 Type C

USB 3.1 Gen2x2 Type C

And the list goes on...

 

I don't even know if i listed any of them correctly because the naming is so stupid and no one can even remember most of it.

USB naming is completely messed up. They should just use The header type and the bandwidth instead of USB2, USB3, etc.

Who cares about the 2.0, 3.0, Gen, 1x2, etc. stuff?

 

For example:

USB-C 10Gbit

or

USB-A 5Gbit

 

It could be so easy. I don't get why they make it worse and worse. What good does standardizing do if there are 10 standards for the same port type?

The problem is that motherboard manufacturers and some device manufacturers are using incorrect terminology.

For example, USB 3.1 is just an updated document that contains the USB specifications. That's why some connectors are retroactively being named things like USB 3.2.

If everyone stuck with the marketing names the USB-IF suggests then everything would be fine. The official names are:

SuperSpeed USB 5Gbps

SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps

Superspeed USB 20Gbps

 

The recommended logos also have the speed written on them. 

It's also a problem that people can't seem to get that the USB protocol standard is not the same as the USB connector standard.

Your list is basically like saying:

Quote

PCIe has such a confusing naming scheme.

PCIe 2.0 with HDMI 1.1

PCIe 2.0 with HDMI 1.2

PCIe 2.0 with HDMI 1.4b

PCIe 2.0 with HDMI 2.0

PCIe 2.0 with Displayport 1.2

PCIe 3.0 with HDMI 1.4b

PCIe 3.0 with Displayport 2.0

PCIe 3.0 with HDMI 2.0

PCIe 4.0 with Displayport 2.0

and the list goes on...

 

[Doobeedoo]

Huge jump really. USB4 once it starts to get released on devices will be quite neat. Really hoping we start seeing more of the new ports everywhere.

[Spindel]

1 hour ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Why would they do that? ._.

Because it is more robust instead of having the male part, that is fairly fragile, inside the female port like it is today.

 

A connector simillar to the lightning port would be much prefered in my opinion (but it does not have to be the lightning port). 

[The Benjamins]

5 hours ago, Arika S said:

can we please not call it that? its just going to be confusing.

 

USB 2.0

USB 3.1

USB 3.2

USB-C 2.1

 

they need to enforce a speed on USB-C so you dont have USB-C cables that are actually just USB 2.0 speeds

you seem confused

 

USB-C and USB-A and USB-B are physical standard that are unrelated to speeds
USB 1, 2, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 4 are protocols that govern speed

Also most media like to use the spec names and not the brand names which is where the confusion comes from. The branding is super simple, but some how know one knows it

[The Benjamins]

2 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Meh, it would be easier to just print everything.
USB A - 480 Mbps Max - 5V/2A
USB C - 20 Gbps Max - 50V/5A

ya but it sucks that due to USB-IF being so open the media likes to grab random bits of info from the spec and go with it.
No one needed to know the technical names like USB 3.2 2x2 for 20Gbps, all they need to know is that USB SS 20 is 20Gbps

its great that USB C can be used in many other standards but in turn it also confuses people.
TB3/4 and DP2 will both use USB C

[Glenwing]

This is an updated release of the USB Type-C connector specification. Previously we had release 1.3:

 

 

and release 1.4:

 

 

and so forth. The USB communication protocol is a separate standard in a separate document, and that document has its own revision number which is different because it isn't this document.